[Firehol-support] message from xt_physdev when running firehol in bridge configuration
costa at tsaousis.gr
Wed Nov 19 00:01:03 GMT 2014
I just pushed a version of firehol that adds these:
--physdev-is-bridged in routers
--physdev-is-in at the input of interfaces
--physdev-is-out at the output of interfaces
I verified it generates the proper statements for both interfaces and routers.
I can't check if it works though. Please check it and let us know.
There is one issue with helpers (NAT, marks, etc). In that case, it
will assume --physdev-is-bridged only if both physin and physout are
given to the firehol statement. Otherwise, it will use --physdev-is-in
for physin and --physdev-is-out for physout. I am not sure if this has
any implications. This might be an issue in rare cases (example:
marking packets routed, using just physin), but I can't think of an
easy fix now. So, if you need physin/physout in helpers (statements
before interfaces and routers), please report a few use cases to help
us figure out how to solve it.
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 1:24 AM, Tsaousis, Costa <costa at tsaousis.gr> wrote:
> Hi JT.
> Thanks for the tip.
> New options available:
> physdev match options:
> [!] --physdev-in inputname[+] bridge port name ([+] for wildcard)
> [!] --physdev-out outputname[+] bridge port name ([+] for wildcard)
> [!] --physdev-is-in arrived on a bridge device
> [!] --physdev-is-out will leave on a bridge device
> [!] --physdev-is-bridged it's a bridged packet
> In your example you have used --physdev-is-bridged
> As I understand it, we have to use:
> --physdev-is-bridged in routers
> --physdev-is-in at the input of interfaces
> --physdev-is-out at the output of interfaces
> Since I cannot test it, I need your help to figure this out.
> Do you agree?
> On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 9:26 PM, JT <admin at jtlabs.net> wrote:
>> I'm having the same problem using bridged traffic. My resolution has
>> been to write my own manual iptables entries in firehol.conf.
>> vif+ <> br0 <> br1<> eth1
>> br0 and br1 have physical address associated with them (eth0/vif+ and
>> eth1 respectively). Whenever I try to route or create interface rules
>> with a physout/physin I get the syslog message (even though it is
>> bridged traffic). Please let me know if it's user error.
>> For example, firehol.conf has:
>> router vm2inet inface vif+ outface br0 physout eth0
>> route all accept
>> which generates:
>> "xt_physdev: using --physdev-out in the OUTPUT, FORWARD and POSTROUTING
>> chains for non-bridged traffic is not supported anymore."
>> instead I use:
>> iptables -I FORWARD -m physdev --physdev-is-bridged --physdev-in vif+
>> --physdev-out eth0 -j ACCEPT
>> So far any combination of inface/outface/physin/physout generates the
>> message. Let me know what other information I can provide.
>> On 11/18/2014 9:12 AM, Tsaousis, Costa wrote:
>>> Hi Phineas,
>>> Can you trace it down? Are you using physin/out on non-bridged traffic only?
>>> Try to run a few commands by hand to check which ones complain.
>>> On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 3:59 PM, Phineas Gage <phineas919 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> I’m getting this message many times in my syslog when running firehol:
>>>> xt_physdev: using --physdev-out in the OUTPUT, FORWARD and POSTROUTING chains for non-bridged traffic is not supported anymore.
>>>> This happens only when I use either the ‘physin’ or ‘physout’ keywords on either my router definitions or route subcommands for the br0 (bridge) interface. If I omit those keywords it doesn’t happen. Can I still use ‘physin’ and ‘physout’ with my bridge somehow? They’re useful for knowing which direction the traffic is going through the bridge...
>>>> Firehol-support mailing list
>>>> Firehol-support at lists.firehol.org
>>> Firehol-support mailing list
>>> Firehol-support at lists.firehol.org
>> Firehol-support mailing list
>> Firehol-support at lists.firehol.org
More information about the Firehol-support